EPIC Sues FBI Over Terrorist Screening Database

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

EPIC Sues FBI Over Terrorist Screening Database

Posted by timothy on Thursday October 14, 2004 @10:11AM from the chasing-a-behemoth dept.

octaene writes "The Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) has applied for an emergency court order (pdf) requiring the FBI to release information about the Terrorist Screening Database and its role in Secure Flight, the government's proposed passenger prescreening system. Secure Flight will compare passenger records against information in the database, which will include expanded 'Selectee' and 'No-Fly' lists. EPIC argued that information about the database must be made available prior to the October 25 deadline for public comments on the Transportation Security Administration's plans for testing Secure Flight."

36 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

In other news... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-10-14 10:21 · Score: -1, Troll

...The NRA has announced that it will be sponsoring Assault Weapon dispensing booths inside airport security zones to celebrate the expiration of the assault wepaons ban due to stupendous Congressioal and Presidential cowardice and failure of backbone (on all sides) in the face of intimidation by the few idealogues who have captured the agenda of what was once a reasonabl organization in defense of Constitutional rights. The FBI denies that these booths will be recording buyer's names and adding them to the CAPPS databases, as this would not capture the 'desired votin...er, demographic bloc,' said Special Agent Polly Apoyntee.
1. Re:In other news... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-10-14 10:28 · Score: 0
  
  It is kind of bizarre that we're screening air passengers whose names happen to match some list at the same time that we're increasing the availability of assault weapons.
  
  Odds of a repeat of a 9/11-style airplane takeover - 0. Because the passengers now know they'll die if they allow it to happen.
  
  Odds of a horrible crime being committed with assault weapons - 1. Because what else are they good for?
2. Re:In other news... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-10-14 10:30 · Score: 0
  
  ...protecting yourself from an overzealous, nazi-like government?
  
  Remember, the first thing the Nazis did after taking power, is to disarm the people.
3. Re:In other news... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-10-14 10:39 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  Do you really think that if the "government" were to come after you, your petty weapons would stop "them"?
4. Re:In other news... by bwd234 · 2004-10-14 13:00 · Score: 0
  
  I, for one, welcome our new government overlords.
5. Re:In other news... by Mattcelt · 2004-10-14 15:18 · Score: 1
  
  If there are more of "us" that have them than there are "them" that have them, then you bet.
  
  What's scary is that we're most likely below the critical mass required to be able to stage a rebellion if one were needed against a truly oppressive government.
  
  "People will not rebel until not rebelling becomes more painful than rebelling." So we have a ways to go, for better or for worse...
6. Re:In other news... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-10-14 15:41 · Score: 0
  
  If there are more of "us" that have them than there are "them" that have them, then you bet.
  
  Dude, you are seriously fucked in the head if you and your whack-job militia buddies think you can overthrow the government.
  
  Here's some of the things that "they" have that "we" can't have...
  Tanks, smart bombs, dumb bombs, nuclear bombs, anti-tank missiles, surface to air missles, air to air missiles, napalm, biological weapons, chemical weapons (guess what, America has a vast, fucking shitload of "illegal" WMDs), automatic weapons, fighter jets, land mines, cluster bombs, and, oh, lots of other neat things you'd probably like to use when deer hunting with your buddies. Which you should probably get back to...
7. Re:In other news... by DAldredge · 2004-10-14 17:12 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  What assault weapons are more available now? Most of the things the 'assault' weapons ban banned were just cosmetic changes. They didn't change what they weapon did, they just changed the way it looked.
  
  You also ignore the fact that states that have conceled carry have lower gun crime rates than states that ban guns.
  
  And don't get me started on CALIFORNIA banning a class of gun that has never been used in a crime.
8. Re:In other news... by aminorex · 2004-10-14 18:26 · Score: 1
  
  if? were?
  
  the u.s. today is considerably more repressive than, say, germany in 1939. the top layer of leadership is similarly demonic, and behaves similarly. i guess rebellion in berlin, 1939, would have been unwarranted as well?
  
  agree, disagree, i don't care. but i ask the question because i'm genuinely interested in your answer.
  
  --
  -I like my women like I like my tea: green-
9. Re:In other news... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-10-15 02:45 · Score: 0
  
  You underestimate the power of a grassroots movement. But go ahead and be complacent, that's one way to prove you are right: Sit back and do nothing.
10. Re:In other news... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-10-15 02:50 · Score: 0
  
  yea really...Like the govt is going to smartbomb their own people? That would just make more people hate it. Sort of like what we are doing in Iraq, and it's not working there, is it?
11. Re:In other news... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-10-15 02:55 · Score: 0
  
  The carefule attention to detail in your post has convinced me that you are not just another right-wing, gun-toting, know-nothing who is just espousing views written in NRA leaflets. I find your argument completely compelling.
12. Re:In other news... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-10-15 07:07 · Score: 0
  
  You forgot to ask to be signed up to the newsletter mailing list.
13. Re:In other news... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-10-15 07:12 · Score: 0
  
  "1" is not an "odd" or a way to indicate a probability of something happening.
14. Re:In other news... by julesh · 2004-10-15 07:34 · Score: 1
  
  "1" is not [...] a way to indicate a probability of something happening.
  
  Yes it is.
15. Re:In other news... by julesh · 2004-10-15 07:36 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  There's a class of gun that has never been used in a crime? I'm impressed. Have any been sold to the public yet?
16. Re:In other news... by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF · 2004-10-15 07:58 · Score: 1
  
  I believe DAldredge was referring to California's ban on .50 caliber breech loading rifles. You see the thing is, there is not alot of criminal application of a rifle that costs thousands of dollars plus $4 a round. Violent crime is usually an act of desperation. It is a lot easier to pay 5 guys a hundred bucks each to go kill someone, then to hire someone who can afford to buy that kind of expensive specialty gun.
  
  P.S. they are a lot of fun to shoot if you can find a long enough range.
17. Re:In other news... by Stephen+Samuel · 2004-10-15 22:13 · Score: 1
  
  Oh yeah???? Just ask some of the guys trying to pin down Iraq! -- and we're not getting defections there. If the government got overt about it's crackdown on civil rights, I expect that you'd find a good number of 'good soldiers (cops, etc)' refusing to follow orders.
  They've sworn to uphold the constitution first, and their orders second. I expect that some would take that oath seriously.
  
  --
  Free Software: Like love, it grows best when given away.
18. Re:In other news... by macdaddy · 2004-10-16 01:54 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  Thank you! For the first time EVER I've seen someone argue the facts about guns on Slashdot besides me! Thank you thank you thank you! BTW, California banned guns not by function but by appearance. Literally. They took a book of guns with pictures and decided what should be banned by what LOOKED lethal. In fact that banned a number of extremely common deer rifle models that happened to have black synthetic stocks while leaving their siblings with identical actions alone. The California ban is a joke. Somewhere I have a link to an article about the 2 people that put it together. I want to say it was the CA AG and Lt. Governor. The email was a response to the other's question about involving CA's Bureua of Investigation and some other professional group. The author said that he didn't want to invole that state's BI or the other professional LEO group because their conclusion wouldn't support the position that they wanted to take on guns. That's mighty telling if you ask me. I unfortunately live in one of 4 states that doesn't permit some form of concealed carry and our crime rate is abnormally high. You would think that here in Kansas we would have a low crime rate. Nope. We were the 32nd largest state in population in 2000 but had the 19th highest TCI (crime rate). You sir are going on my friend list.
19. Re:In other news... by macdaddy · 2004-10-16 02:05 · Score: 1
  
  They've done more assinine things than that when it came to their gun bans. Read my reply to the parent. My favorite was a shotgun they banned. I forget the make and model (really weird brand). It looked like a couple pieces of pipe screwed together (similiar to the grease gun, M3A1, but bigger of course). It had a couple grips on it IIRC. A really weird looking gun. Now you want to believe the CA folks that put this list together were honest and had a reason for banning it. It must have a dru mag. Nope. It must be a fully auto shotgun. Nope. It must be one of those ancient duck shotguns that has a huge spread of 20 or 30 yards (saw it on Ripley's). Nope. What is this gun that the CA officials decided to ban? Well, it's a breech loading single-shot .410. A freaking .410! Shot at anything bigger than a quail with a .410 and you'll just piss it off. Come on now. I swear there are a bunch of fucking morons running CA.
20. Re:In other news... by macdaddy · 2004-10-16 02:19 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  The Assault Weapon Ban DIDN'T BAN ASSAULT WEAPONS !! Assault weapons have had a hefty tax on them since 1934. If you had the patience and lots of $$ you could still legally buy one though. They've been banned outright since 1986 by a poison pill amendment to the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986. The Assault Weapons Ban wasn't an assault weapons ban at all. It had nothing to do with assault weapons. Assault weapons are by definition a selectable fire military weapon that can be fired as a fully automatic or as a semi-automatic. Fully automatics were already illegal when Clinton passed the AWB. The text of the AWB didn't ban fully automatics anyhow. It simply banned specific costmetic features like pistol grips, bayonets, stocks, and mag capacities. What makes my Glock 22 less lethal with only 10 shots, down from the factory 13?
21. Re:In other news... by DAldredge · 2004-10-16 15:28 · Score: 1
  
  First, I like guns and, just like cars computers food EVERYTHING ON THE PLANET they are safe if used correctly.
  
  Second, facts are facts. If the facts support my side I am happy, if they don't I rethink my position (which seams to rarely happen on the internet)
22. Re:In other news... by DAldredge · 2004-10-17 04:58 · Score: 1
  
  Check out the history and crime rate of people who have a fed license to have fully automatic weapons. Two people in the past 40 years have used those licensed weapons to commit a crime and one was in 'Law Enforcement'
23. Re:In other news... by ScrewMaster · 2004-10-17 09:19 · Score: 1
  
  Only the fact that MY Glock 22 has the factory 13.
  
  But seriously, don't expect any semblance of rationality, numeracy or even simple common sense when dealing with any issue of political import. That means that the right to bear arms, global warming, abortion, separation of Church and State, stem-cell research, privacy and civil liberties, copyright and software patents, and/or any number of other issues that actually do impact our life and liberty are unlikely to be resolved in a manner beneficial to society as a whole. I realize that politicians habitually make bad decisions for the wrong reasons, and make really bad laws, but lately we seem to be overwhelmed by a tide of illogic.
  
  --
  The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
24. Re:In other news... by homer_ca · 2004-10-17 09:19 · Score: 1
  
  So-called assault weapons are involved in a small fraction of gun crimes compared to handguns, *but* those shootings are often notorious, high profile crimes like mass shooting rampages and big shootouts with police. In that kind of scenario, a large capacity magazine is an advantage. In a more common scenario like robbing a store or killing one person, 10 shots is plenty. I've also heard interviews where the law enforcement side complains about flash suppressors which might be a legitimate concern. A folding stock does make a rifle more concealable. Still, with everything else, your point is well made. The AWB is just a red herring. It bans cosmetic features like pistol grips and synthetic stocks. Hunting rifles fire the same high powered rounds as assault rifles. Handguns are used in the vast majority of gun crimes.
25. Re:In other news... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-10-17 15:32 · Score: 0
  
  yea really...Like the govt is going to smartbomb their own people? That would just make more people hate it. Sort of like what we are doing in Iraq, and it's not working there, is it?
  
  But it's not stopping there, is it? 12,000+ Iraqi civilians were murdered, 1,100+ USian troops killed, thousands of USians permanently maimed (great time to buy stock in artificial limb companies, btw), all to get one contained whacko with no WMDs or links to "9/11".
  
  Don't think troops would bomb you terrorists? That's what you "freedom fighters" would be labeled, you know. They would in a heartbeat. They might be a little more leary of bombing a city, but you militia types like to hole up in a compound. Makes a nice, easy target from above. Why, I bet it could even be done with a minimum of collateral damage. Bush & Co. are pushing for a more "active" role for the military in "Protecting the Homeland". They're working on legislating ID requirements for travel. Show me your papers, comrade!
  
  But it's all to protect the US against terror! Anything can be forgiven if wrapped in the flag, take for example the torture of prisoners at Abu Ghraib, detention of thousands without legal recourse, murder and torture of other prisoners of war during interrogation... the list goes on. What are you going to do about it?
26. Re:In other news... by Zak3056 · 2004-10-18 02:58 · Score: 1
  
  the u.s. today is considerably more repressive than, say, germany in 1939. the top layer of leadership is similarly demonic, and behaves similarly
  
  Six million jews and millions of other "undesirables" would disagree with you... at least they would disagree with you if they hadn't been exterminated by the Nazis. I'm not denying the US has its problems right now, but to compare us to the Nazis is just absurd.
  
  --
  What part of "shall not be infringed" is so hard to understand?
27. Re:In other news... by Famanoran · 2004-10-18 08:35 · Score: 1
  
  Genocide is merely one aspect of oppression. A nasty one I'll grant you, but let's face it. If the Jews didn't want to die, why the fuck didn't they try to fight? A few thousand Jews in an extermination camp, even unarmed, would have been able to overwhelm the comparitavely (sp?) small number of guards in each camp.
  
  Get with the program. The US today is just as Nazi as the Nazi government was, they're just not as overt about it.
  
  I'm sure a large percentage of the populations of Afghanistan and Iraq would have that view anyway.
  
  (And that's another point: Look at it however you will, the US has essentially annexed those two nations, just as Germany attempted to annex various nations.)
28. Re:In other news... by __aaxtnf2500 · 2004-10-18 08:58 · Score: 1
  
  While your definition of assault weapon is close enough, they didn't exist in 1934 (Sturmgewehr 42 is generally recognized as the first assault weapon). And they have not been banned outright. I know firearms dealers who possess and shoot them in South Florida. 1986 further regulated the transfer and possession of specific parts of machine guns, specifically, drop in auto sears. Illegal != Regulated. As a fellow Glock 22 owner and patriot(in the constitutional sense), please be careful about these phrases, as ignorance is the weapon of the VPC and the Brady's, and the enemy of liberty.
29. Re:In other news... by __aaxtnf2500 · 2004-10-18 09:03 · Score: 1
  
  You live in an urban area and have little to no experience with firearms, correct? I think you underestimate the trust that a great many Americans have in their government, the number of soldiers that would refuse to fight against Americans, hunters' knowledge of rural areas, and the collective firepower of American civilians. No military could withstand the rebellion a hostile occupation of America would create.
30. Re:In other news... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-10-18 12:03 · Score: 0
  
  In regards to allowing people to carry concealed weapons, doesn't this mirror the Mutually Assured Destruction policy between the US and Russia during the Cold War?
  
  Sure, it kept people from starting nuclear war. It also was a huge drain on resources for both entities- if everyone starts carrying concealed weapons, isnt that a drain, in and of itself?
  
  I can see where you're coming from, and I appreciate that you have data to back it up. But personally, it makes me nervous for everyone to have weapons- because some crimes are performed in the heat of passion, and because i'd be afraid that criminals would flat out shoot you rather than ask for your purse/wallet.
  
  Just my 2 cents.
31. Re:In other news... by kinzillah · 2004-10-18 13:13 · Score: 1
  
  To play devils advocate for a moment... The part about "shall not be infringed" thats so hard to understand is the "well regulated" part, and specifically that a militia is no longer required for the defense of the country, as we have a standing military thats quite proficient at making things go boom. Its quite a two sided thing.
  
  --
  Douglas P. Price
32. Re:In other news... by aminorex · 2004-10-21 11:26 · Score: 1
  
  i don't think there is any suggestion that concentration camps were killing people on an industrial scale in 1939.
  
  i'd like to know why its off limits to make a comparison to the nazi administration. i mean, if the shoe fits...
  
  --
  -I like my women like I like my tea: green-
Fact Sheet: The Terrorist Screening Center by Mstrgeek · 2004-10-14 10:50 · Score: 4, Informative

This is a site that has a well-written write up dealing with Terrorist Screening
http://www.dhs.gov/dhspublic/display?content=1598

--
Chris Williams clw7500nc@gmail.com
Re:In other news... Grass Roots Movement... by davidsyes · 2004-10-20 10:49 · Score: 1

n: That action the result of government trampling over, on or across grown sod... (DOH!)

If worse comes to worse, the (or some alternate-earth) government would issue pagers to all their VALUED personnel in a target area and give them 4 hours to vacate before the:

"Tactical-to-Practical" Anti-Grassroots Overhead Neutron-Yttrium

bomb is dropped..., ahme, LOST...ahem, regrettably prematurely-detonated after being mis-directed to populated coordinates domestic.

Talk about an A.G.O.N.Y. bomb. (I almost wrote "bong") (no, I don't drue dugs)

--
Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
Re:In other news... Do you REALLY think by davidsyes · 2004-10-20 10:52 · Score: 1

that if EPIC wins the case, it would be an:

EPIC VICTORY??? DOH!!!

--
Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"